TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and on facts by completing assessment under section 153A(1)(b) of The Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.12.2011. The Ld Assessing Officer passed the order without finding any incriminating evidence against the appellant is totally wrong, unjustified & illegal and same deserves to be quashed. 2. That on facts and in law disallowing expenses of Rs. 1,54,988/- in totality without raising any question, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and without issuing the mandatory show cause notice is totally wrong, unjustified & illegal and same deserves to be allowed in full. 3. That without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not admitting additional evidence under rule 46A. The additional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....948/-. 4. The assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals) and submitted that assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1,54,988/- to Mr. Vikas Babbar and further sum towards reimbursement of expenses incurred by him. Assessee submitted the confirmation and PAN number of the recipient of the income. The learned CIT (Appeals) was also requested to admit the above evidence under Rule 46A of the Act. The assessee also raised an additional ground of appeal submitting that in absence of any incriminating documents found during the course of search, no addition can be made. The learned CIT (Appeals) obtained the remand report of the Assessing Officer wherein it was submitted that search was conducted on 6.11.2009 and the impugned assessment y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that even in the absence of incriminating evidences the addition can be made. She relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in E. N. Gopakumar Vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker). She further relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All.) and CIT Vs. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar in I. T. A. No. 270/2014. She further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT (2016) 390 ITR 496 (Del.) and Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del). The main argument of the learned CIT [DR] was that as assessee is situated in Faridabad, the decision of the Hon'ble Delh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court, which is the jurisdictional High Court of the assessee. No such decision could be found on our research too. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 (SC) though in case of 153C has held that only those assessment years for which incriminating evidences were found during the course of search in case of other persons concluded assessments can be disturbed. Furthermore, Hon'ble Supreme Court in 88 ITR 192 has held that if the court find that the language of a taxing provision is ambiguous or capable of more meaning than one, then the court has to adopt the interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly show where provision relates to imposition of a penalty. Theref....